Glen Beck - worst interview?

Glenn Beck is a major-league dickhead. His success is due almost exclusively to the resonance his pent-up anger has with hundreds of thousands of white men that, regardless of income level, are miserable with their day-to-day lives.

Further evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9IC7njYYc

I hear promos for his show on the local AM station that is the flagship station for the three professional sports franchises, and every soundbyte out of his bile-spewing mouth just sounds like fist-pounding for the sake of fist-pounding. I can't imagine a whole three hours of that...but I guess his audience wouldn't have it any other way.

I know I'm splitting hairs, but I think he's worse than Rush now. At least Rush has the vocabulary and has an instantly distinctive tone and routine, even if it's beyond self-parody at this point.
 
It wasn't a very good interview, but he clearly stated his point in the last minute. You must not have paid attention.
Ultimately they were agreeing with each other, Glenn was just trying to make it funny (and failed).

Here is a summary of the video, for the lazy:

Glenn - I'm perfectly fine discussing all the points your bringing up about legalization, but let's not make California's economic panic a reason for, since decisions made in an economic panic, as we've recently seen, are usually bad.

Other Guy - Yeah I don't care why we talk about it, let's just talk about it.

It wasn't a good interview mostly because they both agreed and the guy being interviewed didn't really want to talk about California's economic panic and marijuana, which was the point of the segment.

When you do an hour show 5 days a week, and try to make it entertaining, you're going to have a lot of duds. But really, if you are so anti-beck you could have found better stuff to tear him up with (as I'm sure he would gladly show himself, since he's very self depreciating).
 
I just saw him interviewing someone representing the US Communist Party. It was a pathetic interview - the sort of "sitting at the bar" caliber of debate that you wouldn't expect from an intellectual person. It wasn't even reasoned discussion; Beck's approach is the "talk louder than you and interrupt you with outrage" approach that's so entertaining and, yet, intellectually nutritious like a fucking deep-fried twinkie.

He's a child. He doesn't ask good questions. But he is charismatic.

It's not that he wears his political bias on his sleeve: he does. That's not a big deal. And don't act like he's unique because he's abandoned the Republican party. So has everyone else who supported them for the past 8 years. The only dyed-in-the-wool conservative who sticks with the GOP through everything is Bill Kristol. Beck is as unique as Bill O'Reilly is someone who talks for the "common man."

Between that, the I-have-NO fuckIN' IDEA-what-he's-doing interview with Jonah Goldberg where he was drawing jesus and a little kid on a dry erase board, his "let's review the footage of my colonoscopy" clip, the "look directly into my eyes and put them in a separate on screen section" attempt, or his "let's base political policy off of the 'Golden Rule'" montage from his radio show the other day, if you think he possesses ANY useful political insight, ANY useful news you didn't get elsewhere, ANY semblance of intelligence, or ANYTHING other than another screaming and outraged white man in a necktie on a news channel, then I don't know what to tell you. Chances are you're a simpleton who gets a reactionary boner at the mere mention of the word "Libertarian" on cable news such that you're willing to overlook absolutely everything else about the program.

(full disclosure, he's on tv next to me right now talking about men going into caves and women rounding up their children based on instinct; this is all a means of explaining why his ratings have increased among women. I'm not exaggerating or telling the selective truth here.)

He is, at best, a headman for an uninformed, poorly planned, scatterbrained news program. And at worst, clinically fucking off his rocker.

But, in the end, it's pretty fucking hilarious that a dude like thrust, who LIKES Beck, is the same person who tries to flippantly disregard Obama's appeal as empty, but charismatic, rhetoric. Tee-hee-hee-hee.
 
Beck is an idiot but he doesn't deserve to be compared to Rush, not at all, I really can't see anything they have in common other than perhaps both favoring libertarian ideology.
 
Time will tell with Obama. He has to work through a president that had a historically low rating and a Democratic Congress that had even lower approval ratings. His work is cut out for him. The only reason I'd say Obama's appeal may be empty is simply because he hasn't had enough time to do anything yet. The new guy is always going to have appeal intially simply because he is a new person in the role.

In regards to the topic, most of the time I don't have a problem with Beck. I'm not conservative, but I can at least listen to him. I am surprised at the emotions that some of these hosts can rile in liberals though.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']In regards to the topic, most of the time I don't have a problem with Beck. I'm not conservative, but I can at least listen to him. I am surprised at the emotions that some of these hosts can rile in liberals though.[/quote]

It's because of a few things:
1.) The hardcore liberals are very polarizing and think that they are "intellectuals" who are smarter than everyone else.

2.) Anyone who does not agree with them is against them; therefore, they get confused if someone who is supposed to be one of the bad guys, starts attacking Republicans too.

3.) They enjoy intellectual beard scratching and psychobabble that makes no sense, provides no tangible results, and leads to more wasteful spending.

4.) The whole democrat party is composed of whores for unions and advocacy groups... anyone who threatens funding cuts for these institutions is automatically an enemy.

And before you get started, the Republicans aren't any better... they are also a bunch of liars, whore, and thieves... they showed their true colors in California when they just passed the largest tax increase in history and are now trying to put fake "spending cap" propositions on the ballot, whose only purpose is to extend the duration of the tax increases... :bomb: The Republican Party in California is dead to me... they are useless and should all be recalled...
 
The emotions are in regard not to his viewpoints, but my absolute disgust that such a childlike, unformed intellect is what is considered a viable, useful, informed political perspective in today's mass media.

He's a blithering idiot that doesn't deserve his spot any more than drunk Hank at the bar deserves a 1-hour prime time nightly newscast to air his grievances with the way the world works.

That's what it is: he's unqualified for the job, but we overlook that to discuss his viewpoints as if they're something worth discussing.
 
[quote name='BigT']1.) The hardcore liberals . . . think that they are "intellectuals" who are smarter than everyone else.[/QUOTE]

I think this (common) misconception is due to the fact that intellectuals lean liberal, relative to the general population...

There are plenty of stupid liberals that know they're stupid, and plenty of liberals who, like me, are of average intelligence and know it. Delusions of intellectualism aren't any more common in liberals than conservatives.

[quote name='BigT']2.) Anyone who does not agree with them is against them; therefore, they get confused if someone who is supposed to be one of the bad guys, starts attacking Republicans too.[/QUOTE]

That's just patently false... everyone is now attacking Republicans, even Republicans...

[quote name='BigT']The Republican Party in California is dead to me... they are useless and should all be recalled...[/QUOTE]

I don't understand why Republicans, instead of trying to change their party, don't just switch allegiance to a party that better fits their ideals (Libertarian). Many have, a lot of Republicans have jumped ship and now call themselves Libertarian, but it seems all who remain wish for the Republican party to change into what is essentially the Libertarian party.

I wish Republicans would just let the party die and we'll have Dems vs Libertarians from here on out. It would do a great deal to move toward a political arena where religion has no role (as it should be) and voters make decisions as they relate to governance rather than trivial social issues...
 
Folks don't switch because nobody wants to engage in the legwork of *building* a new political party.

The Republican party won't change.

The Libertarian party has no legitimacy. Folks won't focus on building it up from the local to the federal, so it's doomed to perpetual irrelevance.

As for the "wah-wah, liberals demand intellect" argument of BigT's, I sure as hell do. From my news, from my opinions, from the opinions of others. Would I prefer an educated physician over a "man on the street" placed in scrubs? Well, I ask, wouldn't you?
 
One of the of the meanings that dictionary.com gives for intellectual:

"an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings."

That definitely doesn't describe most conservatives.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']One of the of the meanings that dictionary.com gives for intellectual:

"an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings."
[/quote]

Might that have something to do with the fact that self-proclaimed intellectuals write our dictionaries? :D
 
Did anybody else catch the episode of Colbert this week that totally ripped on Beck's stupid little "doomsday scenario" bullshit? Hilarious.
 
[quote name='BigT']Might that have something to do with the fact that self-proclaimed intellectuals write our dictionaries? :D[/quote]
Well at least we know who wrote that book, unlike another well read book...
 
@JolietJake: And the sentiments that you've espoused in now two post on this thread are why "liberalism" is never going to penetrate to the degree that perhaps the ideas would merit. You seem to have a problem with religion. Saying that religion has no place in politics is at best a wish. Religion has always played a role, from the very founding of this country.

The "activist" atheist/agnostics are just as annoying/aggravating as the extreme fundies. Most religious persons are inclined to be more socially liberal. Caring for the "least" of society is not anti-religion, in fact, it's quite in tune with the Judeo-Christian philosophy accepted by the majority of Americans. However, if you keep trying to beat people over the head with 'your religion is make-believe', that only makes them more inclined to dig in their heels.

I, and many other Christians, see the extreme "defense" of "Separation of Church and State" as the atheists/agnostics trying to have the State sponsor only *their* 'religion'. It's one thing to argue that Intelligent Design shouldnt be taught in a Science class. It's clear that ID does *not* belong in science (though perhaps in a philosophy class). But it's completely unreasonable for the State to allow a school team's players to pray before a game if they wish, but ban the coach from joining them. An athiest coach would be free to practice their belief by abstaining from the prayer, but a believing coach is prohibited from exercising his belief.

This *bitterness* is particularly troubling as the so-called Conservative Right then appears to be the party accepting of faith and the Left is seen as hostile to faith. If only we could focus on what we agree on, we could really do something about health care and homelessness.

Sorry for the OT rant y'all.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Beck is an idiot but he doesn't deserve to be compared to Rush, not at all, I really can't see anything they have in common other than perhaps both favoring libertarian ideology.[/QUOTE]

Please. Rush, Beck are cut from the same cloth. The only difference is Rush came first.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']@JolietJake: And the sentiments that you've espoused in now two post on this thread are why "liberalism" is never going to penetrate to the degree that perhaps the ideas would merit. You seem to have a problem with religion. Saying that religion has no place in politics is at best a wish. Religion has always played a role, from the very founding of this country.

The "activist" atheist/agnostics are just as annoying/aggravating as the extreme fundies. Most religious persons are inclined to be more socially liberal. Caring for the "least" of society is not anti-religion, in fact, it's quite in tune with the Judeo-Christian philosophy accepted by the majority of Americans. However, if you keep trying to beat people over the head with 'your religion is make-believe', that only makes them more inclined to dig in their heels.

I, and many other Christians, see the extreme "defense" of "Separation of Church and State" as the atheists/agnostics trying to have the State sponsor only *their* 'religion'. It's one thing to argue that Intelligent Design shouldnt be taught in a Science class. It's clear that ID does *not* belong in science (though perhaps in a philosophy class). But it's completely unreasonable for the State to allow a school team's players to pray before a game if they wish, but ban the coach from joining them. An athiest coach would be free to practice their belief by abstaining from the prayer, but a believing coach is prohibited from exercising his belief.

This *bitterness* is particularly troubling as the so-called Conservative Right then appears to be the party accepting of faith and the Left is seen as hostile to faith. If only we could focus on what we agree on, we could really do something about health care and homelessness.

Sorry for the OT rant y'all.[/QUOTE]
That was an informed, well thought out position, even though I disagree with much of what you said.

You plainly missed the post above dismissing an intellectual approach to ... anything. Your kind is not welcome here.

In the interest of disclosure, I stopped listening to Beck because he was just so damned inane. I still listen to Rush, Hannity, and Laura daily.
 
[quote name='BigT']

And before you get started, the Republicans aren't any better... they are also a bunch of liars, whore, and thieves... they showed their true colors in California when they just passed the largest tax increase in history and are now trying to put fake "spending cap" propositions on the ballot, whose only purpose is to extend the duration of the tax increases... :bomb: The Republican Party in California is dead to me... they are useless and should all be recalled...[/QUOTE]

Dude, spare us the fake equal opprotunity hating. We all know where you stand and nothing is really going to sugar coat it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I still listen to Rush, Hannity, and Laura[/QUOTE]
why?

Serious question

I'll never understand why people tend to listen to the pundits they agree with...
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Glenn Beck is a major-league dickhead. His success is due almost exclusively to the resonance his pent-up anger has with hundreds of thousands of white men that, regardless of income level, are miserable with their day-to-day lives.

Further evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9IC7njYYc
[/quote]

What a creep - is it just me or did this remind anyone else of James Spader in Boston Legal.

[quote name='Squall835']Here's Beck at his absolute worst:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFkpEduQJZo[/quote]

LoL a variation on the good ol' I have no problem with with black people, I even have black friends, but...

Beck seems pretty shallow to me.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Dude, spare us the fake equal opprotunity hating. We all know where you stand and nothing is really going to sugar coat it.[/quote]

Well, whether you believe him or not, it represents my feelings and the feelings of more people than you might realize. Democrats vs. Republicans is just a political version of gangs fighting over turf, the turf being the voting populace. The only time they seem to work together for the people, instead of pushing their agendas, is in times of national crisis (9/11 for example), and that is pathetic. After sifting through all that verbal diarrhea that goes back and forth between the two, it's easy to become disillusioned with the whole fucking government, not just one side.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Dude, spare us the fake equal opprotunity hating. We all know where you stand and nothing is really going to sugar coat it.[/quote]

There, I rest my case (from my previous post):
2.) Anyone who does not agree with them is against them; therefore, they get confused if someone who is supposed to be one of the bad guys, starts attacking Republicans too.


At least the Democrats were honest; they ran on the following platform:
1.) We will raise your taxes sky high.
2.) We will then redistribute your money to the teachers unions, prison guards unions, government workers, illegal aliens, and octomom (that includes all the welfare recipients).

The Republicans ran on:
1.) We pledge no new taxes. Arnold even made fun of Angeledis for loving taxes!
2.) The Republicans in the assembly and senate signed a pledge of no new taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2SGMuuJXk

Bullshit! Then, what do they do? They turn around and join the Democrats in gang raping us! The highest tax bracket in CA starts at $43K; hell, I make about $50K/yr and that puts me in the highest tax bracket!!!!!???? And how far does that go... after my rent (studio apartment), student loans, gas, bills, small 403b saving deduction, I'm essentially broke... it's a good thing the hospital provides us with free food... ;)

The anger is directed at the Republicans because they are lying traitors!
 
Can I make a general pledge, BigT, to you and anyone else angry about the current direction of our economic policy?

Do not, under any circumstances, use the phrase "redistribution of wealth."

That's all I ask. If you don't like degrees of taxation or public works, fine. But "redistribution of wealth" is a misnomer. ANY ACTION by the government that affects, directly or indirectly, the flow of money in any direction, is a redistribution of wealth. Higher taxes, lower taxes, more spending, less spending - it's all redistribution of wealth. Limbaugh and Beck like to talk about it a lot, sure, but that doesn't make it a meaningful term. Bush's tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy? Redistribution of wealth.

Want the poor to pay more taxes with money they don't have? Fine. I don't agree with you, but to get to that point in terms of a debate, I urge you to step away from a vague and dreadful phrase like "redistribution of wealth."

Forgive me if that's too intellectual. ;)
 
[quote name='Koggit']why?

Serious question

I'll never understand why people tend to listen to the pundits they agree with...[/quote]

Affirmation of their political/social beliefs.
 
Is that really interesting to listen to?

"Hey! Yeah, cool, I agree with this guy! I'm gonna listen to his opinion for 3 hours a day, I guess"?

Makes no sense..
 
[quote name='BigT']There, I rest my case (from my previous post):
2.) Anyone who does not agree with them is against them; therefore, they get confused if someone who is supposed to be one of the bad guys, starts attacking Republicans too.[/quote]


there is not enough rolly-eyes to respond. I am not against you but I am sick of the "don't criticize what I say because I dislike one aspect of my own party". I hear that b.s. on talk radio all of the time. You are setting some lame way to avoid being questioned and sorry, no one gets a free pass.

I'm not "confused" because I know where you stand. The question is, do you?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It was a pathetic interview - the sort of "sitting at the bar" caliber of debate that you wouldn't expect from an intellectual person.[/QUOTE]

Ding ding ding. Although the commie guy not realizing that the Nazis were "national socialist" by name was pretty funny.

[quote name='mykevermin']Can I make a general pledge, BigT, to you and anyone else angry about the current direction of our economic policy?

Do not, under any circumstances, use the phrase "redistribution of wealth."[/quote]

Why not? That's what's occurred for a long time, and not just being proposed or started now, of course. But especially when your plan is to tax high earners are an increased rate and to give "refund" checks to those who pay no income tax, what else is taking money from high earners and giving it directly to low/non-earners than "redistribution"? I know the word has been made out to be sinister, which is what you're probably upset about, but it is accurate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='hostyl1']@JolietJake: And the sentiments that you've espoused in now two post on this thread are why "liberalism" is never going to penetrate to the degree that perhaps the ideas would merit. You seem to have a problem with religion. Saying that religion has no place in politics is at best a wish. Religion has always played a role, from the very founding of this country.

The "activist" atheist/agnostics are just as annoying/aggravating as the extreme fundies. Most religious persons are inclined to be more socially liberal. Caring for the "least" of society is not anti-religion, in fact, it's quite in tune with the Judeo-Christian philosophy accepted by the majority of Americans. However, if you keep trying to beat people over the head with 'your religion is make-believe', that only makes them more inclined to dig in their heels.

I, and many other Christians, see the extreme "defense" of "Separation of Church and State" as the atheists/agnostics trying to have the State sponsor only *their* 'religion'. It's one thing to argue that Intelligent Design shouldnt be taught in a Science class. It's clear that ID does *not* belong in science (though perhaps in a philosophy class). But it's completely unreasonable for the State to allow a school team's players to pray before a game if they wish, but ban the coach from joining them. An athiest coach would be free to practice their belief by abstaining from the prayer, but a believing coach is prohibited from exercising his belief.

This *bitterness* is particularly troubling as the so-called Conservative Right then appears to be the party accepting of faith and the Left is seen as hostile to faith. If only we could focus on what we agree on, we could really do something about health care and homelessness.

Sorry for the OT rant y'all.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of anti-religious thought on this board. The post you responded to is just the latest in a long line of attacks on religion. Which is a shame, since one needs not be religious to respect another's religion, and to realize that religious organizations can be a force for good in society.

But back to your post, I agree 100%. Atheists often don't realize that by enforcing the removal of all religion, they are imposing their own beliefs on others. These are the sorts of people who object to the singing of Christmas carols at a school concert.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of anti-religious thought on this board. The post you responded to is just the latest in a long line of attacks on religion. Which is a shame, since one needs not be religious to respect another's religion, and to realize that religious organizations can be a force for good in society.

But back to your post, I agree 100%. Atheists often don't realize that by enforcing the removal of all religion, they are imposing their own beliefs on others. These are the sorts of people who object to the singing of Christmas carols at a school concert.[/QUOTE]

As an atheist, I'll take on this....

1. I have not problem with people having faith, but I have huge problems with organized religion. People should form their own spirtual beliefs, not just mindlessly accept the teaching of what ever denomination their parent's drug them to.

2. Organized religions do far more harm than good. Again, just used to get people to have certain beliefs and values rather than doing any deep thinking themselves. Faith could do a lot of good, I'll concede. But organized religion is a scourge on society IMO. Too many blind followers. Too often used to try and force morals on others. Too often used to justify evils etc. etc.

3. I support separation of church and state and the government, schools etc. should not be doing anything that could be seen as advancing any particular religious system. But I have no problems with non-organzied prayers on school grounds, christmas carols etc. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We just have to draw a line at anything that too clearly promotes one religion over another in any kind of official government setting--like organized prayer in class rooms led by teachers, teaching of creationism/ID in required courses etc. etc.

Anyway, that's my views. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs--I just wish more people would treat spirituality/religion as a personal matter and not let organized religions play such a huge role in shaping how they think, they're moral code etc. etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As an atheist, I'll take on this....

1. I have not problem with people having faith, but I have huge problems with organized religion. People should form their own spirtual beliefs, not just mindlessly accept the teaching of what ever denomination their parent's drug them to.

2. Organized religions do far more harm than good. Again, just used to get people to have certain beliefs and values rather than doing any deep thinking themselves. Faith could do a lot of good, I'll concede. But organized religion is a scourge on society IMO. Too many blind followers. Too often used to try and force morals on others. Too often used to justify evils etc. etc.

3. I support separation of church and state and the government, schools etc. should not be doing anything that could be seen as advancing any particular religious system. But I have no problems with non-organzied prayers on school grounds, christmas carols etc. We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. We just have to draw a line at anything that too clearly promotes one religion over another in any kind of official government setting--like organized prayer in class rooms led by teachers, teaching of creationism/ID in required courses etc. etc.

Anyway, that's my views. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs--I just wish more people would treat spirituality/religion as a personal matter and not let organized religions play such a huge role in shaping how they think, they're moral code etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

1. Were your parents atheist? Why are you upset that others choose their parents' religion? You want it to be a personal matter but are complaining that others don't make the choice the way you feel is best? Maybe a smidge hypocritical.

2. I just disagree. While there have been plenty of evils done in the name of religion, there have been plenty of evils done in the name of eliminating religion as well, and in the name of plenty of other things. Obviously I don't think anyone should force their beliefs on anyone else, which is why I'm glad I live in the United States.

3. I agree with this.

PS - Surely you don't think people can be religious without that having a huge effect on the way they think, and especially on their moral code? But yes, I do also agree that politicians (not most people, but politicians) should avoid putting their personal religious beliefs front-and-center. This is an issue I am much more in agreement with the Democratic Party on than the Republican Party, although there are plenty of Democrats (including Obama) who do the same as Republicans do on it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']1. Were your parents atheist? Why are you upset that others choose their parents' religion? You want it to be a personal matter but are complaining that others don't make the choice the way you feel is best? Maybe a smidge hypocritical.[/QUOTE]

Nope, they're Methodists. See what happens when you make assumptions....

PS - Surely you don't think people can be religious without that having a huge effect on the way they think, and especially on their moral code?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I just think people should do more meditation and deep thinking on their own rather than just adopting the moral code and beliefs of what every organized religion their parents drug them too. Organized religion is a lazy way to acquire a moral code and belief system and the major reason I think it's bad for society.
 
The constitution gives us freedom from religion. It gives us a government that is explicitly non-religious. We have a secular government. Nothing is more American than secular governance. There's no debate: freedom from religion is the foundation of America. The problem is just that most religious folks are simply too stupid to understand the difference between secular and atheistic. They see secular and think atheist. Morons, really... there are just too many morons...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']2. I just disagree. While there have been plenty of evils done in the name of religion, there have been plenty of evils done in the name of eliminating religion as well, and in the name of plenty of other things. Obviously I don't think anyone should force their beliefs on anyone else, which is why I'm glad I live in the United States.[/QUOTE]

Since you guys are debating a non-issue I'm gonna risk derailing it: 10% of America is atheist, but 0.2% of convicted felons are atheist. What's your take on that?
 
[quote name='Koggit']Since you guys are debating a non-issue I'm gonna risk derailing it: 10% of America is atheist, but 0.2% of convicted felons are atheist. What's your take on that?[/quote]

That's easy! People who are stuck in jail turn to prayer and God to give them hope (and a way out...) :D

Kind of like the atheist who starts praying when he's in a tight spot! ;)
 
Glen Beck is a douche. He's always reminding us how he used to be a drunk like it's a fashion statement. Guy's scared to death of Muslims and pretty much everything else on the planet too. How this asshole is on the TV and radio makes no sense. Must be one of those "love to hate him" O'Reilly or Limbaugh type of asshole.
 
[quote name='BigT']That's easy! People who are stuck in jail turn to prayer and God to give them hope (and a way out...) :D

Kind of like the atheist who starts praying when he's in a tight spot! ;)[/QUOTE]

More or less. Whether honest introspection or institutional manipulation to appear remorseful, you'll find more religion behind bars than outside.

[quote name='elprincipe']Ding ding ding. Although the commie guy not realizing that the Nazis were "national socialist" by name was pretty funny.[/quote]

I suppose. Beck didn't give him a chance to speak edgewise, so while he tried to distance himself from "Nazi = socialist," Beck didn't give him an opportunity to talk. That's ultimately what's disingenuous about Beck's show and other talk shows. They bray, they shout, they interrupt. To the modern news viewer, winning a debate isn't built on superior ideas or intellect. You win because you're louder and because you don't give anyone else an opportunity to talk.

In short, modern debate on television news networks has abandoned the facade about being intellectual at its core, and is an entirely physical enterprise (insomuch as talk can be made physical or violent, which it certainly can be).

Why not? That's what's occurred for a long time, and not just being proposed or started now, of course. But especially when your plan is to tax high earners are an increased rate and to give "refund" checks to those who pay no income tax, what else is taking money from high earners and giving it directly to low/non-earners than "redistribution"? I know the word has been made out to be sinister, which is what you're probably upset about, but it is accurate.
Click to expand...

You (dis?)miss my point. Any action of government that adjusts (or even maintains the status quo) taxation and spending is a "redistribution of wealth." To talk of "redistribution of wealth" as something that only moves in one, Robin-Hood like direction is a reenforcement of American pro-wealthy anti-everyone else ideology. It legitimizes their assets, and regards as aberrations everyone else's. It screams that "stealing from the rich to save the poor" is a cardinal offense that shouldn't be attempted in any way, shape, or form - but it also disregards, as irrelevant, the opposite possibility: that the poor can be robbed and burgled to the satisfaction of the rich. Both are redistribution of wealth, yet you use the phrase to mean one of the two, and act as if the second is laughably impossible.
 
[quote name='Koggit']why?

Serious question

I'll never understand why people tend to listen to the pundits they agree with...[/QUOTE]
I know you think I'm conservative but I'm genuinely not. You and I are just liberals that disagree.

I'm constantly surprised at how well conservative radio does at forming the opinion on the right. I would ask where the person I was talking to got something they brought up and it was often a radio host. I listen for a couple of reasons. First, I hate hearing a position for the first time during a debate with someone. Listening to AM radio means not being surprised at a position. Also, when I hear something on AM then hear someone cite it without telling me that's where they got it, I have an insight into their media sources and can tailor my position to something better suited to handle someone that uses such sources. Because to be honest, real policy isn't what someone that sources from AM is going to respond to.

Just as an example. over the summer if you recall (kind of old news now) there was this magically coordinated groundswell of conservative opinion talking up "all of the above" when discussing energy sourcing. It started on AM radio. Suddenly it popped up from multiple people here on CAG arguing the same thing as well as people I talk to IRL.

And I do enjoy the entertainment of it. Rush is hilariously self-promoting. He finds this amazing balance of painting himself as both being the loudest, most out front guy leading the way AND this poor, abused soul ravaged by "the left". It's just funny to me. Laura and Sean do the same to a lesser degree, they just approach from different (and less effective) ways.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Did anybody else catch the episode of Colbert this week that totally ripped on Beck's stupid little "doomsday scenario" bullshit? Hilarious.[/QUOTE]
No, but I saw most of it on Beck's own recap of it, which Beck enjoyed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4qArDiq3yI

[quote name='mykevermin']
I suppose. Beck didn't give him a chance to speak edgewise, so while he tried to distance himself from "Nazi = socialist," Beck didn't give him an opportunity to talk. That's ultimately what's disingenuous about Beck's show and other talk shows. They bray, they shout, they interrupt. To the modern news viewer, winning a debate isn't built on superior ideas or intellect. You win because you're louder and because you don't give anyone else an opportunity to talk.

In short, modern debate on television news networks has abandoned the facade about being intellectual at its core, and is an entirely physical enterprise (insomuch as talk can be made physical or violent, which it certainly can be).
[/QUOTE]

I mostly agree with you. Especially with Beck. He is a rookie, more or less, at tv and especially interviews, which makes him pretty shitty at interviewing. As far as I know, he has no journalistic training, and that's part of his appeal. He makes the average common man feel like one of them has a voice, "warts and all" - as beck puts it. He's not a professional at anything and I think a lot of people like that.

That being said, he nor his show really comes off as a "news source" - it's pretty obvious it's just an opinion show. An opinion that happens to be pretty popular, for the most part, or his radio and tv show wouldn't do so well.

Beck is at his best doing it solo, in front of charts and what not. He can be amusing. But I agree with you that you will never see a very informative interview or debate on his show.

BTW, have you seen Beck's appearance on O'Reilly on Friday's? You definately get a vibe from Bill like "Oh god, I have to have this loon on again because he's now on my networks payroll". They really don't seem to get along most of the time.
 
He's been doing radio, at least as long as I'd heard of him, for well over half a decade. Not exactly a rookie.

If you like his "dude on the street" style, that's fine for you. But I have standards. I loved Tim Russert because he was fuckin' SMART. Because he was tough. Because he was well-read, and often armed with facts and quotes. Russert never shouted, never employed adages to prove his point, never showed us his colon, and had highly-respected national leaders on his show. He never entertained whether or not Bush was fascist, and were he alive today, wouldn't be asking if Obama was socialist. He asked questions, and in a rare performance compared to people on political programs today, sat back and shut his fucking mouth while the question was fully answered - no matter HOW MUCH lies, bullshit, and nonsense came out of the answerer's mouth. He would call them out on their lies, but he respected his post and his interviewee.

He was a brilliant man with respect for his audience and his guests. His program was about information. Not about showing people his colon, or drawing Jesus on a whiteboard.

That someone like Beck gets a prime tv news slot is a disservice to the people who TRULY try to disseminate information in this country.

Nearly three decades ago this kind of television program was relegated to UHF channels' late-nite options. The "freaks" on Wally George's Hot Seat, or the Morton Downey Jr. Show were for the kids who couldn't fall asleep after watching "Kung Fu Theatre" on Channel 64. These days the same kind of absurd format, shouting, yelling, and general disregard for the niceties of debate and human interaction pass for a "news program."

And ANYONE on a news channel is a news source. Don't talk down to me like I'm the kind of idiot who would fall for the "he's not a news source" argument. You're the one who agrees with his perspective. You're the one who tunes into him on Fox. You're the one who looks up to him. If he's not news, then, what in the world is he? I hold the same disdain for a large number of people who are wastes on news shows, mind: Beck, Cavuto, Nancy Grace, Hannity, DL Hughely, and god knows how many others. He talks about news on a news channel. People watch his tripe to be informed. That's bad, and that's news, no matter how much you want to dance around his "newsiness."
 
What's up with the constant different clips taking up half the screen on Beck's show? Are we Americans that ADD that we need videos of someone smoking pot on the bottom half of the screen to keep out attention?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Nope, they're Methodists. See what happens when you make assumptions....[/quote]

I did no such thing. I asked you a question. Nice to see it distracted you from actually answering anything I said.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Of course not. I just think people should do more meditation and deep thinking on their own rather than just adopting the moral code and beliefs of what every organized religion their parents drug them too. Organized religion is a lazy way to acquire a moral code and belief system and the major reason I think it's bad for society.[/QUOTE]

So agreeing with philosophies developed over thousands of years is lazy? Any more so than rejecting all of them?
 
[quote name='Koggit']Since you guys are debating a non-issue I'm gonna risk derailing it: 10% of America is atheist, but 0.2% of convicted felons are atheist. What's your take on that?[/QUOTE]

Where did you get 10%? And where does the 0.2% come from? I would be interested since those seem strange numbers to me.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

This says 1% as of 2002, but I'd like to know where your numbers came from.
 
[quote name='mrfreeziexp']Are we Americans that ADD that we need videos of someone smoking pot on the bottom half of the screen to keep out attention?[/QUOTE]

In a word, yes.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He's been doing radio, at least as long as I'd heard of him, for well over half a decade. Not exactly a rookie.[/quote]
I said/meant rookie for TV. Not radio.

And ANYONE on a news channel is a news source. Don't talk down to me like I'm the kind of idiot who would fall for the "he's not a news source" argument. You're the one who agrees with his perspective. You're the one who tunes into him on Fox. You're the one who looks up to him. If he's not news, then, what in the world is he? I hold the same disdain for a large number of people who are wastes on news shows, mind: Beck, Cavuto, Nancy Grace, Hannity, DL Hughely, and god knows how many others. He talks about news on a news channel. People watch his tripe to be informed. That's bad, and that's news, no matter how much you want to dance around his "newsiness."
Click to expand...

I certainly don't look up to him. I don't worship him, you'd think you and I are rather intimate the way you continue to slip words into my mouth.

I never said I get my news from him. I never said I rub up against the tv and orgasm to the fountain of information I get from his charts. All I ever said was there was no other pundit on TV, RIGHT NOW, that is saying things that I think need to be said and talking about things that I already believed and think need to be talked about. There is nobody else, that I know of, in the MSM, that is discussing the things that I hear people discussing in restaurants, buses, and on phone conversations.

You clearly still struggle with the difference between journalists and entertainers. You can argue all day about what you THINK the common man thinks is news, and how bad it is that so many people watch O'Rielly, Olberman, and Beck to get "news", but that's clearly not the purpose of those shows. There are just as many, if not more, people in this country that get their "news" from Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, as they do Beck - and I think you know that.

The only "News" program on Foxnews is Anderson Cooper and the dude that replaced Britt Hume.

Here is an excersise for you, which I just tried myself: Hit the "info" button on your remote while highliting on any of these shows you hate, see what it says. I just went in the other room and turned on O'Rielly and did it; "Best selling author uses news, interviews, and analyses (Talk)."

You seem upset by the fact that viewers watch these entertainment programs (with views you hate) for news. Be mad at the viewers then. Be mad at ADD America that just doesn't have the high-class taste and refined preferences for news sources that you do.
 
I'm not mad, but I am disappointed in what culture offers us, and what we accept. I refuse to accept such nonsense.

And since when has Anderson Cooper been a Fox guy? (the newscaster following Beck is Sheperd Smith, by the by).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm not mad, but I am disappointed in what culture offers us, and what we accept. I refuse to accept such nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

But I'd for once (*gasp*) agree with Thrust here. Culture offers what sells. Direct your ire and the non-intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum who listen to these blowhards like Beck, Limbaugh, Olbermann etc.

If people didn't watching/listen the shows would get the hook as they wouldn't have the big ratings to bring in the big advertising bucks.

Just a facet of our culture sucking as a whole. Look at what tops the box office charts and the music top 40 lists. There's plenty of good stuff out there--be it news, movies or music. But the majority prefers mindless dreck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top